Well, not quite true. In fact if I lift my eyes slightly I can see rain falling on roses, as it has done every day for the last week. Had my invitation not gone astray in the mail, as I assume it did, however, I would have been there like a shot. Not simply because I am a fan of the monarchy, which I am, but for the history, to witness an ancient ritual conducted in an ancient building, parts of which date back to the 11th century.
And to have a cup of tea and a marmalade sandwich with my cousin in Oxford.
Every cloud has a silver lining though, and had I been on the other side of the world I would have missed the dubious pleasure of reading Shaneel Lal's column in last week's Herald on Sunday.
I always start reading Lal's column but rarely finish. Chips on shoulders lose their appeal after a while, but this time I did. Having done that, I retired to the vegetable garden to avoid further fuelling my wife's view that I should stay well clear of this sort of rubbish, so as not to disturb my equilibrium.
Lal is perfectly entitled to call for an end to the British monarchy, and is far from alone in doing so, although I have yet to hear or read anything that compels me to believe that my life, and the lives of my fellow New Zealanders, would somehow improve if we were to wake up tomorrow as members of a republic. Perhaps someone will enlighten me one day. The trouble I have with this particular ill-informed diatribe is that it demands that I swallow a huge serving of irrational, ill-concealed hate.
Lal bemoans the fact that 100 million pounds was reportedly pumped into Saturday's ceremony, while Britons endure an economic crisis. And the royal family will continue to "suck" millions more via the sovereign fund. What they don't see fit to mention is the fact that each and every Briton is believed to benefit financially from the monarchy to the tune of more than 8 pounds a year.
They're in the black, monarchy-fuelled tourism alone being estimated at earning around 1.8 billion pounds every year. And one suspects that without the monarchy the tea towel industry would be in real trouble.
Lal also baulks at being required to address the monarch as Your Highness (actually that should now be Your Majesty) and, subsequently, Sir. They see no reason for doing so, which is fair enough. But no one is telling them that they have to.
It might have been different in Henry VIII's day, but people no longer lose their heads for failing to obey the proper decorum. Rudeness and disregard for history are now generally tolerated, except, in many cases, by those who don't practise what they preach.
Lal's most cutting criticism, however, is reserved for the fact that the British monarch is also the head of the Church of England, and that their "power above commoners" (of which the current monarch actually has very little, if any) is legitimised "by a god that does not exist."
I suspect that this is an opinion, to which Lal is well and truly entitled, but I'm not sure it's a fact. What is a fact is that some 2.3 billion people on this planet do not agree that they pray to "an imaginary man in the sky," or that said imaginary god is white. Pity He's not middle class, and therefore privileged. That would have covered all the major prejudices in one fell swoop.
They go on, lamenting the monarchy's "rampaging" of indigenous populations, whatever that means, its exemption from observing race and ethnic anti-discrimination laws, and its continued "leeching" off the vulnerable to remain in power.
Again, I have no trouble accepting Lal's right to believe all this, but I'm not sure they can claim to be a well-informed critic. Personally, I believe Charles is a good and decent man who genuinely cares about his people, and that he will make a good King, insofar as the world in which he will `reign' does not offer great scope for being a good or bad example.
I also believe that he meant what he said during the coronation, that he was there not to be served but to serve. I suggest that Lal and others who hold him in such low regard look at how he has spent much of his adulthood, not least via his Prince's Trust. I doubt that many of those who call for an end to the monarchy can hold a candle to Charles in terms of actually getting off their bums and doing something for others, something that does indeed enrich people's lives.
Meanwhile, Lal finds it absurd that for so long, the royal family has demanded people's unreserved respect (really?) without providing any reason, and the world has slavishly gone along with the monarchy's delusions. I'm not sure whether that sentence displays ignorance or arrogance, but I have no doubt that those members of the family who will long be most affectionately remembered earned respect and genuine affection by their deeds.
That is certainly true of Charles' mother and maternal grandmother. The mourning that followed their deaths was unquestionably genuine, even though they believed in an imaginary white man in the sky and represented a family that once rampaged over the indigenous populations of the greatest empire the world has ever seen.
On the other hand, in Shaneel Lal we have just another
critic who demands respect for themselves and their views, and displays nothing
but scorn for others. Respect has to be earned, and mutual, and I've got a
dollar that says Charles III will earn his share of that long before Shaneel Lal
does.
Peter Jackson MNZM, former editor of the Northland Age newspaper, 38 years at the helm of this popular paper, now happily retired.
11 comments:
I think we can assume that as the Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement between Iwi and the Crown that any attempt of nullification will lead to the restoration of pre Treaty tribal control of the country. There will never be a President of New Zealand.
And even if there were a president, how would this new regime work - rules, checks and balances, boundaries etc?
By the way remind me, what do people like Lal contribute to the economy?
Whether or not you believe in the monarchy largely comes down to your values and how closely you hold them. If you strongly believe in the values of the French Revolution- liberty, equality, fraternity, then the monarchy is incompatible with these. Privilege by accident of birth as practiced by monarchists is clearly the antithesis of equality. I don’t see how you have it both ways if you truly value equality.
To Peter Jackson.
Firstly I did not "received any invitation to the Coronation", either, but was able to sit in the warm comfort of my own home, with unfettered access to both the tea kettle, bar & toilet with out having to circumvent knees, stools, other people etc
Prior to the "Grand day", thru the medium of YouTube, I was able to watch video film of the Rehearsal's of the Military Elements, that would on the "big day put it all to the test" - which they did.
For Mr Lal, this is one thing that draws "the many" from both across the UK & from overseas just to see, with their own eyes. He probably needs to see the crowds that gather both outside Wellington Barracks (Brigade of Guards London Barracks), St James Palace & Buckingham Palace on a daily basis, to witness the Changing of the Guard.
I to have been to England, and as "a must do" visited the front gates of Buck Palace, witnessed first hand a Trooping the colour, visited all other places associated with both the Royals & British History.
You mention that said "person' who wrote the Newspaper article that had you in the "garden talking to the broccoli" - has obviously not visited "The Old Country" and taken in what (as you point out) thousands of visitors to England do - visit everything that is British History.
Whilst in England, my English friends would always say - 'during the summer months give London a wide berth, due the influx of foreign visitors'.
For that Country and now it is our turn, there are many who now "point fingers" at anything that relates to British History, Colonization, this was observed during the "Black Lives Matter protests (in England) that had the protestors destroying what they could of the esteemed past History" - not all of them having any relationship to what Britain has been, or is trying to forge ahead (ex EU) and develop. Here in NZ, we have seen, and will start to see more of, the same actions, protest, words, incriminations that will be designed to "destroy what we have achieved and/ or wish to achieve".
Shaneel Lal is but a "voice prepping the war".
By ANON, in the Land of New Zealand.
Jim I don’t think the monarchy of the French Revolution is the current monarchy of England.
As far as republics are concerned, I think Russia, Pakistan and Brazil have way more problems of freedom, equality and fraternity. Mr Macron of France seems to have seriously upset fraternity and goodness knows what would have happened under Le Pen influence. Pretty awful things are happening in India especially if you don’t subscribe to the majority ethnicity/religion. And many Asian countries are fraught. Maybe not so Japan, who is so old fashioned with a monarchy ?????
I could go on ….
So many competent journalists have lost their jobs in recent times yet they employ Lal. Who reads? Are the employers afraid of the PC stoush which would follow lay off?
A very well-written article.
Peter Jackson should be encouraged to write more. He was a very good reporter (is, despite not having that job title anymore) and one of the few who actually reported the facts rather than perverted them.
Thanks Peter Jackson. Thoughtful enough to use the correct pronouns and honest unlike the double think of Ms Lal
Well said Peter. The irony of resenting Charles' title while demanding to be acknowledged by their own preferred pronoun is lost on Shaneel.
Good post Peter. The Lal's of this world will always pop up on occasions like the Coronation, probably for no reason other than to write a column which might excite some controversy. The issue of who should be deemed to be "head of state" and how they should be selected is quite complex, with many alternative models used by the nation states of this world. I surmise that on the creation of a new state, its people would probably not choose the head of one of its families with succession to be assured for the next thousand years or so.
But quite probably they might reach back in their history and appoint someone who represents tradition and continuity, especially if that head of state was to avoid the argy bargy
Of daily politics and provide some sort of enduring symbol of the "motherland".
In our particular tradition our attachment to a King or Queen of NZ, albeit residing in England, is strange, but it generally works & this practical reality is a good arguement for its retension.
The worst arguement backing a call for our own republic, is that it would demonstrate our "maturity". This is a very similar arguement advanced by my 10 year old daughter to wear makeup and have her ears pierced. Of course this just proves the opposite.
But whatever, the arguements I note the proponents of NZ as a republic generally avoid any suggestion of just who might become our elected or appointed president...perhaps an Allblack hero? A retread politician? Or just some wannabe pushing themselves forward?
one advantage of a republic for nz is that it would eliminate the treaty of waitangi industry.there would be no britain to have a treaty with. something to ponder.
Post a Comment